Juan Manuel Sánchez Gordillo, Mayor of Marinaleda from 1979 to 2023 (among other things) has been described exactly as a “modern Robin Hood” in newspapers^[1], especially in reference to their supermarket raids:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Manuel_Sánchez_Gordillo

In mid August 2012, Sánchez Gordillo attracted considerable media attention both within Spain and internationally due to his role in raids on supermarkets in nearby towns, Seville and Cádiz, where food was stolen and handed out to poor families and to food banks. The items stolen were part of a list chiefly made of rice, sugar, pasta, milk, olive oil and flour. Sánchez Gordillo did not personally remove food, but was outside in the car parks while members of his union conducted the raids. Several of these members have been arrested and later released, though Sánchez Gordillo himself has immunity from prosecution. Sánchez Gordillo has however said he is happy to waive his immunity and go to jail for his cause, in fact he said he expected to be jailed in order to make his message spread further.

And stole from the poor, not the rich.

If anything, a software pirate at home is a far greater example.

It’s complicated.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia articles I found lack citations, so they probably aren’t a good source. They claim that the ROC (Taiwan) claims all of the mainland.

This reddit thread refers to the ROC constitution and interprets it as:

In the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan area and the Mainland area, the following is stated:

“Taiwan Area” refers to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and any other area under the effective control of the Government.

“Mainland Area” refers to the territory of the Republic of China outside the Taiwan Area.

“People of the Taiwan Area” refers to the people who have household registrations in the Taiwan Area.

“People of the Mainland Area” refers to the people who have household registrations in the Mainland Area.

The implication is that wherever this law applies, is what the ROC government considers to be “territory of the ROC outside of the Taiwan Area”. Currently the application of this law overlaps the entirety of the PRC, minus HK and Macau.

This the fun part. If you look at the ROC constitution, it makes […] mention to Mongolia and Tibet.

I don’t know how much of this applies beyond the KMT.

I think rules, written or otherwise, should have exceptions to account for extreme circumstances like this, but a lot of online people just go ‘No, if you don’t bring your cart back you’re a BAD PERSON no matter what!’.

To treat any rule as immutable is an idealist junk perspective. Rules, like all ideas, need to be applied to a context, and I personally don’t see the point in codifying every possible exception. Law officials, programmers and others can tell you how Sisyphean that task would be.

So yes, there are exceptions (obviously!). If you’re putting your cart back and you injure your leg, you don’t have to crawl on your arms just to put it back. But we can still generally say “people should put their cart back after shopping” and it’s clear that we’re generalizing.

Though to be fair, Dutton was never going to be a better option.

Luckily we’re not trapped in a two-party dichotomy, Liberal’s opinions are slowly mattering less and less and minor candidates are getting more of the pie.

Lemmy’s web UI formats it as a footnote^[1], I didn’t realise other apps might not read that formatting:

For those unfamiliar with Prime Minister Albanese:

• Founding member and secretary of Parliamentary Friends of Palestine around 2000^[1]
• Complicit in the zionist regime’s recent invasions and ongoing genocide in Gaza
• Australia trades with the regime, and arrested port protesters and members of the Maritime Union of Australia, including the leader of the Sydney branch
• Australia is the sole exporter of the F-35 bomber fuselage
• Australia repeatedly supported the invasion through UN voting

Related to tests and skills, What if we just didn’t mark students?, a short talk from a university course runner and educator in general.

It makes some points that are already familiar or easy to notice, but it’s also an interesting exploration of academia, tests and skills. I know some students who learn under that lecturer and what they’re taling about clearly comes through in the course structure. One notable part is that one tutorial class is responsible for making notes for each week of lectures, and the whole cohort is allowed to bring those collaborative notes into the exam, like a semi-open book test. I heard they just decided one class to have a lesson on rhetoric instead of cybersecurity because it’s a pretty nerdy industry and one involving invisible risks, and there’s no point being an expert if you can’t convince your boss to let you fix the problems.

That’s the problem, right? The people in power usually benefit from preserving the system that gives them power. Even the major Australian parties have been adding laws which make it harder for minor parties to receive as much funding.

Australia’s two-party system is consistently shrinking, possible in part due to the IRV ranked voting system removing the spoiler effect. They still get about a third each, so I don’t think you’re wrong that there’s a near-binary situation.

Yes, the Labor Party have demonstrated they’re inadequate to solve our ongoing crises. The Greens appear to have kept their strong crossbench position in the senate so I can’t be too disappointed.

Disagree as much as you want, but assuming you’re a user, will you keep using it? This isn’t a whoopsie, or unexpected. As you pointed out, it will happen again. And it was always the safe, profitable choice for them - they’re a for-profit business beholden to VC money, not a political organisation or community project like Mastodon/Pleroma/etc.

It’s far easier to make that decision before they gain critical mass like twitter and reddit did.

My naive guess is that if the Turkish government ban access to BlueSky for not complying, that cuts into user count and therefore profitability.

An Australian anti-fascist perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2KvtlLJyQ

Nazis aren’t “people you disagree with”. They’re anti-social violence-worshippers, and in this Australian context, terrorists grooming children. The main Australian neo-Nazi group literally had leadership get caught applying for a job in disability services when they said they only wanted to work cases for young boys[1]. ASIO have emphasised the decreasing age of NSNs membership. Their strategy, like many neo-Nazi orgs, is to indoctrinate and recruit disaffected and alienated teenagers.

Yes.

It’s kinda weird to sort of start rolling back to where some type of conservatism is actually a good thing.

For what it’s worth, politics is more complex than conservation and change. The status quo is what got us here, so we must to better than merely conserve.

Apples and oranges. A nazi salute is not a racial comment. It’s a signal of allegiance to extermination (which, by the way, extermination is physically violent).

The idealistic fantasy that we should permit the intentional organisation of Nazism is not an effective way to preserve liberty of speech. Australia has no intention of becoming the failing pseudo-liberalist state that the USA is. So if the law doesn’t stop them, our communities will continue to step up and silence them ourselves.

A Nazi salute is a form of hate crime against Jewish people, would it also be illegal to use Racial Slurs?

Why would it? One does not imply the other.

Also, a Nazi salute isn’t just a slur. It’s (at least) signaling that you want a bunch of groups exterminated (Jews are one of those many groups).

Why not execute them?

Pragmatic constraints.